Hero Worship: The Appeal of the Joker

Share.

Why is the Joker such an adaptable villain?

By Joey Esposito

Earlier this week, the comic book community lost Jerry Robinson, best known to fans for his creation of Batman's arch-nemesis, the Joker. In the write-up of the unfortunate news, I asked readers to sound off in the comments with their favorite Joker moments. Perhaps not surprisingly, a sizable chunk of the memories left came from various adaptations – ranging from The Dark Knight to Batman: The Animated Series to Arkham City and even the Adam West TV show.

Much like Batman himself has become a multimedia icon, so too has the Joker become recognized not only as one of the best comic book villains, but one of the best villains period.

That notion is even more impressive when you consider the vast array of interpretations that he's had across different mediums. From the camp of Cesar Romero to the theatrics of Jack Nicholson all the way to Heath Ledger's more subtle and calculated approach, depictions of the Joker have varied wildly yet always retained the sensibilities of the comic book version. Joker is in a unique position in the comic book world that benefits both adaptations and the books themselves – he's all of these various approaches rolled into one, making any take on him a viable one.

The nature of the character is that he has no definitive personality. Sure, there are the basics: green hair, maniacal laugh, purple suit, etc. But after decades of different interpretations in the comic books -- from the original two-bit murderer to the gimmicky version of the Silver Age and up to the present day -- the range of the Joker is so vast that he can work in a variety of different ways. Take Scott Snyder's approach in the recent Batman: The Black Mirror; Joker is almost childlike in the way he speaks.

When Bruce Wayne is no longer Batman (Dick Grayson is the Dark Knight in that particular story), it's as if Joker has lost a parent, aimless and without focus. But compare this to the confident swagger of the Joker that beat Jason Todd to death with a crowbar (and then exploded him) and the differences abound. Yet, both versions are true to what we consider the "definitive" Joker.

The matter of perspective has been essential to Joker's character ever since writers began digging into him a bit more in the 1970s and 80s. With all of the conflicting reports over the character's origin, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison incorporated this idea directly into the character in the acclaimed works Batman: The Killing Joke and Batman: Arkham Asylum, respectively. A famous line from The Killing Joke has Joker saying, "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

In Arkham Asylum, Morrison presents the idea of "super-sanity" – a philosophy he later revisited in his epic Batman run – in which Joker actually re-constructs his personality each and every day depending on what he feels will work most to his advantage, accounting for the many different interpretations we've seen throughout the years. Essentially, this also means that any portrayal that we see of Joker in other mediums is accurate to the source material.

However, one key aspect of the Joker's personality is that he's a parallel to Batman. It's a dichotomy that's been explored often in the comics, and that translates to film. I find it amusing when people compare Ledger's Joker to Nicholson's Joker, because to me, that's apples to oranges. If half of what makes Joker interesting as a villain is his parallels to Batman, one can't possibly compare the two characters when they serve as foils for vastly different Batmen. Meaning, Ledger's Joker would've been a terrible nemesis for Michael Keaton's Batman, and vice versa for Nicholson and Christian Bale.

Joker is a reflection of Batman's world and thus, comparing a "hyper-realistic" Joker to a grandiose, Prince-loving version – both of whom are at home in their respective worlds – is tough. If you want to get meta, you could say that the nature of Joker's suggested super-sanity implies that a Joker transplanted from one film to another would adjust his personality for whatever fits his new surroundings best. Trippy, right?

The Joker will likely never cease to be the most enduring Batman villain; his utter lunacy, visual appeal, and most importantly, connections to and reflections of Batman's own inner-self make him an unbeatable foe not only for the Dark Knight but also other Batman rogues that will come challenge his throne. I urge you to recall a time before Heath Ledger was ever cast as the Joker, when fans were doubtful that anyone could overtake Nicholson as the live-action Clown Prince of Crime.

And yet, a few years later, we have two wildly different takes on a character that are equally beloved. With a reboot impending after Dark Knight Rises, it's likely we'll see another new take on the Joker for another dramatically different kind of Batman film. We'll see all the same concerns -- that it will pale in comparison to Ledger's Joker -- but if it's true to whatever tone the film sets and its portrayal of Batman himself, I'm betting we'll be eating crow once again.

What do you think makes the Joker such a successful villain, either in comics or on screen? Would you want to see him used again in the future Batman reboot? Sound off below and let me know on Twitter!

Joey is IGN's Comics Editor and a comic book creator himself. Follow Joey on Twitter, or find him on MyIGN. You may or may not discover a profound number of cat pictures.